What Does it Mean to Own a House Without Owning the Land it Sits On?

In some cases, Kenyans usually own a house but do not have the ownership rights to the parcel of land. This can mainly be witnessed in cases where one buys a house at an auction.

It also applies in cases where an individual enters an agreement with a landowner to allow them set up a house on the piece of land. Instead of owning the land, the house owner is required to pay rent to the land owner.

The house without land concept is also typical in areas such as Coastal Kenya, where there are cases of absentee landlords among others.

What is the House Without Land Concept? This is a case where an individual can own a house, but they do not own the land where the house sits.

Over time, courts in Kenya have also adopted the meaning to be “ The right to build on another’s land under an agreement which does not pass title to the land.” - This was a meaning derived from a case filed in 2004 in Mombasa.

Notably, Kenyans operating under this concepts often find themselves in legal disputes with the landowners and end up in court. Here are some of the notable rulings that have been issued on the concept (the dos and don'ts).

1. Can a house owner have control over other projects done on the land by the landowner?

The answer is no. A house owner does not have control over projects that the land owner undertakes on the land.

This was a case that arose after the landowner (Ibrahim Rashid and Mustafa Rashid) put up a storey building right outside the Abdukrazak Khalifa's house in Mombasa. Khalifa them moved to court, lamenting that the construction infringed on his rights.

The house owner told the court that storey building blocked natural lighting and that the construction materials made it difficult for him to access the house.

"The owner of a house without land has no legal right to the light and air unobstructed from the adjoining land unless there is an easement. There can be no private right to an unobstructed view without an express easement or restrictive covenant.  

"A property owner or owner of a house without land cannot complain about interference with a view resulting from the lawful erection of a building or other structure on the adjoining land," Justices Martha Koome, Wanjiru Karanja, and James Otieno Odek ruled in 2018.

2. As a house owner, can you renovate or improve the house without permission from the land owner?

The answer is no. Despite owning the house, the courts have determined that one has to inform the landowner of the renovations that they plan to undertake.

In a case also filed in Mombasa, land owners had sued a house owner for demolishing the house bought at auction and built a bigger house.

"It is trite to say that, in the event an occupier of a house without land is under the impression that the house is uninhabitable, he/she can only effect improvements to the existing structure with the consent of the owner. The occupier of the house without land does not have an untrammelled right to effect improvement to the dwelling to the detriment of the landowner.

"The proposed improvements nonetheless can only be necessary and reasonable so as to render his dwelling habitable, but still with the rider that the landowner must be notified of the proposed improvements." Justices Agnes Mugo, Imaana Laibuta, and Ngenye Macharia ruled in July 2025.

3. As a house owner, if you demolish the house to build another one, do you become a trespasser?

The answer is yes. In the July 2025 court ruling, it was upheld that one becomes a trespasser if they demolish the house they bought to put up a new one.

In this case, the house owner had demolished the existing house and was building a new one.

"It is observed at this juncture that the appellant was considered a trespasser the moment she demolished the original house without land and started constructing a storey building. She was also warned to stop the construction, but did not heed," read the ruling in part.

"Her actions amounted to the omission of a continuing tort of trespass. That is to say that the tort of trespass was a continuing injury, and that every time she continued with the construction despite a warning, it constituted a continuing injury by itself, amounting to a new cause of action."